Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

RPG Superstar 2015

Neutral Inquistors, getting sacred and profane bonuses


Rules Questions

Dark Archive

Judgment wrote:
When the inquisitor uses this ability, she must select one type of judgment to make. As a swift action, she can change this judgment to another type. If the inquisitor is evil, she receives profane bonuses instead of sacred, as appropriate. Neutral inquisitors must select profane or sacred bonuses. Once made, this choice cannot be changed.
Weapon of Awe wrote:
You transform a single weapon into an awe-inspiring instrument. The weapon gains a +2 sacred bonus on damage rolls, and if the weapon scores a critical hit, the target of that critical hit becomes shaken for 1 round with no saving throw.

Am I right to assume that a neutral inquisitor should be able to gain both a sacred and a profane bonus? Considering deities like Nethys, it would even make sense from a RP point of view, although it would give neutral inquisitors a pretty big advantage compared to good ones (Weapon of Awe isn't the only spell that grants a sacred bonus).


By the rules you get the sacred bonus no matter your alignment(for the spell). As a GM though I would change the bonus type to match your judgement type so it makes sense.

PS:If Weapon of Awe has an alignment descriptor then it might only apply to non evil inquisitors. I did not look the spell up. I am only going by what is posted.

Dark Archive

wraithstrike wrote:

By the rules you get the sacred bonus no matter your alignment(for the spell). As a GM though I would change the bonus type to match your judgement type so it makes sense.

PS:If Weapon of Awe has an alignment descriptor then it might only apply to non evil inquisitors. I did not look the spell up. I am only going by what is posted.

No alignment descriptor. And that would only apply to evil inquisitors, not to neutral ones.

If sacred and profane were meant to be non stackable, they should just have combined them into a 'divine' bonus.


Call it Weapon of Dread and swap the sacred bonus for profane. :)

Dark Archive

Umbral Reaver wrote:
Call it Weapon of Dread and swap the sacred bonus for profane. :)

So it could be cast twice on the same weapon? Why? There's nothing stopping an evil character from getting a sacred bonus using this spell.


Hmmm. . .

Well, neutral clerics, after choosing to either channel negative energy or channel positive energy, are ensconced in the decision they made. Therefore, if they chose to channel negative energy that is what they will channel for the rest of their lives.

So, I doubt it was intended for an Inquisitor to flip-flop between sacred and profane bonuses. It would be one or the other given the choice you made at character creation.

Umbral Reaver wrote:
Call it Weapon of Dread and swap the sacred bonus for profane. :)

+1 there, matey

Dark Archive

Clerics spells specifically mention how they work depending on the cleric's choice of channeling. Inqusitor spells don't.
So how is that prove that inquisitors are supposed to work like clerics? If anything, the fact that inquisors, unlike clerics, don't mention such a rule should be prove that they are not supposed to work like that.
Also, with Versatile Channeler, neutral clerics are free to chose, too.


I personally think that a Neutral Inquisitor, a divine class, that must choose at 1st level whether or not they receive sacred or profane bonuses, must stick to whatever they choose. It states in the CRB that once that choice is made, they [the Inquisitor] cannot change it. It would be OP for a neutral cleric to just go willy nilly and waffle between the two bonuses.

You may interpret it how you will.

Unfortunately, you fail to realize that you asked for opinions and you remain stubborn in your mindset. Not that any of us were out to change your mind, but you asked for some advice on the matter and we offered some, so I am not sure why you want to argue and refute advice given. It is like asking your Lit teacher how they interpreted a certain novel and then slapping them in the face when they tell you what they thought haha.

Liberty's Edge

Sacred and Profane bonuses don't stack.

This is because if you put them in the same box, they will fight. The energies released by such a struggle almost invariably destroy whatever container they were placed into, and will do so violently.

On the other hand, if you ever wanted to turn a longsword into a grenade, this is a good way to do it!

Dark Archive

Lyrax wrote:

Sacred and Profane bonuses don't stack.

This is because if you put them in the same box, they will fight. The energies released by such a struggle almost invariably destroy whatever container they were placed into, and will do so violently.

On the other hand, if you ever wanted to turn a longsword into a grenade, this is a good way to do it!

Do you have any prove for that statement? As written, it's totally viable for a weapon to be both holy and unholy (although only neutral character could wield it without problem).


If you want it to be holy and unholy, go for it, my friend. I'm not sure why you must slap down everyone that comes along. Fulfill your luscious dreams of paradoxical weapons :)

Dark Archive

Robot GoGo Funshine wrote:
If you want it to be holy and unholy, go for it, my friend. I'm not sure why you must slap down everyone that comes along. Fulfill your luscious dreams of paradoxical weapons :)

Maybe giving prove off your presumptions would prevent you from getting 'slapped down'.

And what's wrong with a paradoxical weapon?

Liberty's Edge

Jadeite wrote:
Do you have any prove for that statement? As written, it's totally viable for a weapon to be both holy and unholy (although only neutral character could wield it without problem).

Proof? Have you ever tried putting the energies of Asmodeus into a weapon that's been blessed by Sarenrae? Or put Heironeous' power into a shield crafted for Hextor?

It's not pretty.

Yes, it looks like it's a loophole. But no DM with sense will allow this, because it's simply unworkable. This is not a thing that requires proof. Gravity doesn't require proof. Fatigue doesn't require proof. Neither does the lack of cooperation between the profane and sacred.

Might as well see if you can get the bonuses from both Enlarge Person and Reduce Person at the same time. Or if you can have a Neutral cleric of a NE god and a NG god at the same time.


They are not presumptions, bucko, they are interpretations. It is your inability to accept advice and opinions when you explicitly asked others what they thought.

What IS wrong with a paradox? The entire concept of a paradox is that it is wrong because it cannot exist.

The pope cannot be the deliverer of God's message and Lucifer's message.
A Holy Symbol cannot ward off vampires and lawful good paladins.

A few examples.

Sovereign Court

Yeah, there are no profane bonuses no more...just sacred bonuses.

Dark Archive

Lyrax wrote:


Proof? Have you ever tried putting the energies of Asmodeus into a weapon that's been blessed by Sarenrae? Or put Heironeous' power into a shield crafted for Hextor?

It's not pretty.

Yes, it looks like it's a loophole. But no DM with sense will allow this, because it's simply unworkable. This is not a thing that requires proof. Gravity doesn't require proof. Fatigue doesn't require proof. Neither does the lack of cooperation between the profane and sacred.

Might as well see if you can get the bonuses from both Enlarge Person and Reduce Person at the same time. Or if you can have a Neutral cleric of a NE god and a NG god at the same time.

Gravity requires prove. It's just usually pretty easy to prove.

And the difficulty of creating a holy unholy weapon is even simpler to quantify. It's DC 17.
And Enlarge Person and Reduce Person would neutralize each other. That's part of their rules.
And since a cleric can only serve one god, that's part of their rules, too. A oracle, on the other hand, can serve multiple gods, even if they're NG and NE.

So, a statement that is not supported by the rules is not proven by stating facts that are supported.


Jadeite wrote:
And Enlarge Person and Reduce Person would neutralize each other.

Because it would be a paradox for both to function at the same time. You have answered your own question. Two opposites cannot function together. So if you want a weapon that does sacred and profane, the two would neutralize one another giving you jack squat.

EDIT: Like I said before, the Pope cannot be holy AND unholy. You can't worship a LG god while you also worship a CE god.

Dark Archive

Hama wrote:
Yeah, there are no profane bonuses no more...just sacred bonuses.

That should have been done. Although I'd have called it a divine bonus instead. That would have also solved the problem of neutral aligned gods.

Robot GoGo Funshine wrote:

They are not presumptions, bucko, they are interpretations. It is your inability to accept advice and opinions when you explicitly asked others what they thought.

What IS wrong with a paradox? The entire concept of a paradox is that it is wrong because it cannot exist.

The pope cannot be the deliverer of God's message and Lucifer's message.
A Holy Symbol cannot ward off vampires and lawful good paladins.

A few examples.

Why is it impossible for someone to be the deliverer of multiple messages? Especially of you have insufficient data about what those messages are?

That's dogma at best. And the RPG equivalent of dogma are rules.
And a paradox does not have to be unsolvable. It may just as well have something to do with limited information that make them seem unsolvable.


Jadeite wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

By the rules you get the sacred bonus no matter your alignment(for the spell). As a GM though I would change the bonus type to match your judgement type so it makes sense.

PS:If Weapon of Awe has an alignment descriptor then it might only apply to non evil inquisitors. I did not look the spell up. I am only going by what is posted.

No alignment descriptor. And that would only apply to evil inquisitors, not to neutral ones.

If sacred and profane were meant to be non stackable, they should just have combined them into a 'divine' bonus.

I am aware that they stack. The idea of changing the bonus type is more for an RP type thing. A neural Inquisitor might not care where his power comes from, but the evil deity that grants the spell probably would not grant sacred energy. It would not make sense. Maybe a change to an untyped or other stacking bonus would work. Actually making it untyped allows it to work with the judgement so I think that is a better solution.

PS:I don't like the idea of a neutral deity doing it either, but since a neutral cleric can channel negative energy I guess it makes sense for the same deity to push for profane or scared bonuses.


Jadeite wrote:
Why is it impossible for someone to be the deliverer of multiple messages?

You're absolutely right. The Pope feels it would be politically incorrect if he didn't also preach the word of the Anti-Christ. You have trumped me.

Jadeite wrote:

Especially of you have insufficient data about what those messages are?

That's dogma at best. And the RPG equivalent of dogma are rules.
And a paradox does not have to be unsolvable. It may just as well have something to do with limited information that make them seem unsolvable.

I unfortunately have spent too much mental energy on you. I did not expect that someone asking for interpretations would just shoot everyone down. I have come to the simple, logical conclusion that you are trolling these messageboards because you're entire train of thought and argument are self contradictory and circular.

If God exists, then why doesn't God exist?

Dark Archive

Robot GoGo Funshine wrote:

I unfortunately have spent too much mental energy on you. I did not expect that someone asking for interpretations would just shoot everyone down. I have come to the simple, logical conclusion that you are trolling these messageboards because you're entire train of thought and argument are self contradictory and circular.

If God exists, then why doesn't God exist?

I'm trolling? Nice.

I wasn't the one bringing RL religion into the thread. Still, it's not my style to aggravate other peoples religious feelings, so I'll retain from answering further on the whole pope/god/devil discussion. I prefer to leave my religious believes out of nonreligious debates and I'd advise you to do the same next time. You know, there are people who might be offended by the statement that it's impossible to worship a good and an evil god.
How exactly is 'there is no rule against it, therefore it is allowed' 'self contradictory' or 'circular'?


I'm not religious, I was just using the pope as an example since Catholics see him as holy.

You trollin' hard, man.

Jadeite wrote:
You know, there are people who might be offended by the statement that it's impossible to worship a good and an evil god.

lolololololol

So, I am genuinely curious, are you going to create this famed weapon? I don't care, I just want to know if you will or not so I can rest easy tonight. I've spent this much energy thus far and this is getting nowhere, so please, tell me.

Dark Archive

Robot GoGo Funshine wrote:
So, I am genuinely curious, are you going to create this famed weapon? I don't care, I just want to know if you will or not so I can rest easy tonight. I've spent this much energy thus far and this is getting nowhere, so please, tell me.

Maybe. I got the idea from the CRPG Wizards and Warriors which had a weapon called the mavin sword that was both holy and unholy. I always liked the idea.

I'm GMing Kingmaker at the moment, so it would probably be a while till I'd include such a weapon in my campaign. I'm not even sure how to include it since there are possible options, either as a weapon to be cleansed or as something created by the forces of neutrality to restore balance. It should be at least an intelligent item, though, maybe with to conflicting egos.
As for the point that made you laugh, you might want to read on dualistic religions (and no, I'm not an adherent of such a faith myself).

The reason for the original question, by the way, was the fact that the party includes a CN inquisitor of Nethys, so combining the destruction judgment with weapon of awe might be a good idea. Since I haven't seen any good argument against it, I'm probably going to allow it.


Good and evil are such subjective terms. I see what you're saying, though, about a god being "evil" AND "good." The gods of Greek theology all display and embody human qualities and make choices that could be seen as "good" and "evil."

Dear god, I'm talking religion and what is "good" and what is "evil" on messageboards. I am back in philosophy class from last semester. . .

Somewhere along the lines we have misread one another. I apologize if I came too quickly to conclusions or misinterpreted what you were originally asking *sigh* This entire time I have been making a character for the Kingmaker game my friend is preparing to run coincidentally, haha.

Well, tell me how your weapon goes in the campaign, though being as stubborn as I am, must finally say that such a weapon would never exist in my game bahahahaha!

P.S. I could see the sword changing its alignment and profane/sacred bonus depending on whoever wielded it...but coexisting? Bah humbug!


In RAW terms I'm pretty sure they stack.

I don't see the sense or benefit in saying "Seems silly to me so I declare the answer to be X!" in a thread that asks "What are the rules?" (as opposed to a thread asking "What do you feel like the rules ought to be?"). Making things up is all very well, but the OP could probably do that without help. I know I could.
The idea that somebody should be gratefully for opinions in response to a question of fact and that it's appropriate to talk down to them for asking for the actual answer is big-headed, ignorant and absurd.

Objects that ward off two opposed alignments make perfect sense to me. They could be weapons or symbols of nihilism or balance, or be created in the name of a deity who didn't take either side in the great war of good and evil and so was rejected by both.
They could also be made by clerics of enemy gods working together to prevent the end of the world or the fall of all the gods; magical items designed to say "We are not going to take this lying down, and here are all the diverse reasons why."

To use D&D terms, Discordianism (a real world belief system) teaches that evil starts with people confusing law or chaos for good. A discordian weapon could certainly be designed to fight anything that wasn't ethically neutral, so why not axiomatic and anarchic? And if you can have those two together, why not holy and unholy?

It's also perfectly possible to bear seemingly contradictory messages. Discordianism works there too, but a person could also believe in Christianity but not in God. They might want you to do what God says while rejecting him as white lie used by primitive civilisations to instil proper values in their people. That's a genuine belief held by some real people. It's no less consistent than other beliefs about God and it could easily be interpreted as pro-God, anti-God, or a mix of the two.


too long, did not read.

EDIT: Good night(morning?).


Too long, eh? The only possible purpose that could be served by posting that is antagonism. Assuming that's what you were going for, you've failed. You just come across as pathetic. I'm actually less irritated having read that than I was before.


Jadeite wrote:
Robot GoGo Funshine wrote:
So, I am genuinely curious, are you going to create this famed weapon? I don't care, I just want to know if you will or not so I can rest easy tonight. I've spent this much energy thus far and this is getting nowhere, so please, tell me.

Maybe. I got the idea from the CRPG Wizards and Warriors which had a weapon called the mavin sword that was both holy and unholy. I always liked the idea.

I'm GMing Kingmaker at the moment, so it would probably be a while till I'd include such a weapon in my campaign. I'm not even sure how to include it since there are possible options, either as a weapon to be cleansed or as something created by the forces of neutrality to restore balance. It should be at least an intelligent item, though, maybe with to conflicting egos.
As for the point that made you laugh, you might want to read on dualistic religions (and no, I'm not an adherent of such a faith myself).

The reason for the original question, by the way, was the fact that the party includes a CN inquisitor of Nethys, so combining the destruction judgment with weapon of awe might be a good idea. Since I haven't seen any good argument against it, I'm probably going to allow it.

I did not know you were looking for an argument against it.

Since we are in the rules thread same type bonuses don't stack. That means if the judgement has the same bonus type to damage as the spell only the higher one applies. If you are looking for a non rules answer then I would change the bonus type of the spell to something untyped like I stated before.

That is all I have.

Dark Archive

I was just looking for additional informations, neither specifically for or against it.
It might be interesting to see a Pathfinder Society ruling.


Jadeite wrote:

I was just looking for additional informations, neither specifically for or against it.

It might be interesting to see a Pathfinder Society ruling.

They follow core rules only changing things normally when it is too powerful or hard to maintain consistently such as crafting magic items.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Cards, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Back to the topic....

To OP:

The thing you have to remember with the class write-ups, whether in the core rules or APG, is that they are written from the POV of the associated iconic character.

That's why the gender of the classes alternates between male/female, and also why the divine classes mention positive channeling, spontaneous cures, healing mercies, sacred bonuses, etc. as the default.

The fact that the games' owners, for 40 years, and the vast majority of gaming groups (and organised play in PFS) assume and/or enforce a no-evil-PCs table rule contributes to this as well.

So, Kyra, Seela, and Imrijka all mention positive energy and sacred bonuses in their class write-ups, being either good servants of good deities, or neutral servants who decided to favor the good aspect of their neutral deity.

So, how does this apply to the judgment ability?;
I think it is clear that the character makes a choice, whether their judgments are powered by a sacred or profane energy.
Once that decision is made, it cannot be changed.
Whether that decision is made immediately on taking the first level in the class, or whether they can defer that until the first time they use the judgment ability would not seem to matter; the decision, once made, is set.

In that respect, it is similar to the way a cleric decides if they are going to channel postive or negative energy, and default to spontaneous cures or inflicts.
The line regarding swapping the judgment bonus each round relates to the aspect of judgment required, i.e. she's buying time for her allies, so decides to switch the bonus from damage to AC; she's attacked by a mob of small enemies, switch to DR; she's badly wounded, switch to fast healing; she's fighting a monster with DR/magic, switch to smiting; she's fighting an enemy who erupts into flames, switch to energy resistance.

Would it be better to transform sacred and profane bonuses into a single, divine, category? Probably.
But PF is carrying some baggage from 3.5, and 3.5 already let the sacred/profane cat out of the bag, so we have to be careful not to have these abilities stacking with some 3.5 material carried forward in a home game.
Or it may just be that the designers want the inquisitor to have an iconic ability that isn't trumped by common spells with the more common divine descriptor.
See how the Bard's inspire courage ability was changed from morale bonuses to attack and damage, to competence, thus no longer stepping on the toes of bless.

Would it be flavorful for a deity with a dualistic nature (such as Nethys, or a deity of cyclic destruction and rebirth) to allow their servants to access both positive and negative energies?
Yes, though this is probably better done as a campaign-specific amendment, via a domain power, or faith-specific feats or traits.
It could be a free choice, at the time of casting, or it could be tied to a seasonal or lunar cycle.
I think that would be appropriate for a deity who was depicted as fickle or schizophrenic force, to be alternately loved and feared.

Dark Archive

One does not need to be able to get profane bonuses. One does not need to be evil to be able to wield an unholy weapon without penalty. Channeling negative energy is not evil, otherwise the inflict spells would have an evil descriptor.
Out of 18 iconics, 9 are good, 8 are neutral and one is evil.
And if the main antagonist is an archon wearing a helm of opposing alignment, that [I]+1 anarchic axiomatic holy unholy good outsider bane sword[I] gets kind of useful.

As a side note, I'm not to fond of the 'cannot be changed' clause. After all, a good inquisitor could become evil or vice versa without losing his power if he serves a neutral god.


I'm having trouble conceptualizing whether or not a Holy Unholy weapon is logically feasible, both narratively and mechanically.

Holy weapons are "imbued with holy energy", and Unholy weapons are "imbued with unholy power." My intuitive response is to view the relationship between these energies as oppositional -- much like heat and cold, or a positive versus negative electric charge. Cancelling.

Mechanically, a Holy weapon is Good-aligned, and an Unholy weapon is Evil-aligned. Once again, my instinct would be to say that a weapon cannot have two antagonistic alignments -- but then, I also do not know where in the book (or if) it would say that.

Arguing in benefit of the concept, this would be the perfect weapon for a Concordant Killer from 3.5 D&D, which is essentially the planar hitman for the forces of Neutrality, and the unaligned answer to demons, devils, angels and inevitables. To a lesser degree, the concept is also particularly useful for a character of the Druidic-Neutral philosophy. As I don't really see any balance problems, I could see potentially approving this.

Liberty's Edge

Jadeite wrote:
Gravity requires proof. It's just usually pretty easy to prove.

Prove to me that it exists in Golarion, then. :)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I would be inclined to say no for the same reason that consecrate suppresses desecrate. It's rational same with haste and slow; the opposing forces negate each other.

Shadow Lodge

Lyrax wrote:
Jadeite wrote:
Gravity requires proof. It's just usually pretty easy to prove.
Prove to me that it exists in Golarion, then. :)

Why prove it? As long as there is plausibly deniability my character can fly at will.


Jadeite wrote:
Judgment wrote:
When the inquisitor uses this ability, she must select one type of judgment to make. As a swift action, she can change this judgment to another type. If the inquisitor is evil, she receives profane bonuses instead of sacred, as appropriate. Neutral inquisitors must select profane or sacred bonuses. Once made, this choice cannot be changed.
Weapon of Awe wrote:
You transform a single weapon into an awe-inspiring instrument. The weapon gains a +2 sacred bonus on damage rolls, and if the weapon scores a critical hit, the target of that critical hit becomes shaken for 1 round with no saving throw.
Am I right to assume that a neutral inquisitor should be able to gain both a sacred and a profane bonus? Considering deities like Nethys, it would even make sense from a RP point of view, although it would give neutral inquisitors a pretty big advantage compared to good ones (Weapon of Awe isn't the only spell that grants a sacred bonus).

RAW: Yes, he should be able to get both bonuses.

RAI: I do not believe so. It should have been written somewhere to handle such circumstances, but it wasn't. Given that they are very Cleric-like, including the injunction against casting spells against their alignment, and can't flip-flop back and forth between channeling positive and negative energy, I would say that they shouldn't be able to get both bonuses on the same weapon.

A simpler solution would be to state that Sacred and Profane bonuses cancel each other.

As I'm not a Dev, I don't really know what was intended, however, if I was the GM, I'd be ruling that just like positive and negative energy, one cancels the other out, or you get a massive explosion. Once you've picked an energy type, stick with it & you're prohibited the other energy type as you are a divine caster.

Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / Neutral Inquistors, getting sacred and profane bonuses All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.